Agenda - 09-02-2008 - 6d - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~J Robin Jacobs: I am from the Eno River Association. I wrote the letter. I have real concern that you have heard from many people about this neighborhood. The subdivision ordinance as it written has zoning and regulations in it. If you think what it is written is inappropriate to this area of the County, then that is the question to bring to the Board of County Commissioners to change those rules. If this development meets all the standards, there is an assumption of appropriateness. There is a bigger picture, we have the state of North Carolina and Orange County and additional people who have put literally millions of dollars in a planned park that will have potentially have two tracts of land directly through it. I have a lot of sympathy for the neighbors here. If you would like to contact me with questions, I would be glad to answer them. Kerstin Nygard: I live on the Cole Mill Road extension. The Eno River State park is a green jewel. It was established after many years of volunteer work. A particular concern is the missing links. It is disheartening that the acquisition of the 20 acre by the state is contingent upon the approval of a dense subdivision. The neighborhood with reservation does acknowledge this subdivision. However; we appeal to increase the lot size to larger lots. The runoff will potentially harm the river quality. It has good water quality now. Larger lots would make the subdivision more tolerable to the neighborhood. Please consider a revision to larger lots. Amy Spaulding: I am looking forward to more neighbors. My concern is about safety. This land was the homestead of Colonial William Pugh, signer of the US Constitution. Also, William Preston Pugh who was the first president of Duke University. Jay Bryan: In terms of our responsibility and options, we can approve one development option, we can approve on development option subject to conditions or we can deny the development option. Judith. Wegner: We need to remind ourselves of the difference of the concept level and the next level. As I understand it, I would like to make a motion with staff recommendation that this be approved with no more than 33 lots. I don't think we have the authority to say there should be only 20 lots. The staff recommendations and conditions are appropriate. Jeffrey Schmitt: There are six or seven things that need to be approved. Glenn Bowles: Essentially, a septic field analysis, open space connectivity, pedestrian/bicycle analysis, transportation analysis. Brian Crawford: I think it is important to consider the response from the attorney. The public needs to hear his words. He said there is general language in zoning ordinance in section number whatever stating that in reviewing subdivision proposals, the Planning Board shall consider the overall design of the proposal in light of the suitability of the land for development to ensure the platting of the development of the subdivision will not create a danger to health, safety or welfare of the Orange County residents. Our state statute clearly states on approval or denial are made with standards explicitly set forth in the Subdivision or Unified Ordinance. There is a zoning ordinance with guidelines and this proposal meets that. Our zoning ordinance does not allow dropping it down to 20. The developer has followed the guidelines to the letter. Sandra Quinn: As citizens, if we didn't questions ordinances and laws, we wouldn't be sitting at this table. If we approve this, we need to send our recommendation to reduce the number of homes and increase the size of the lot. Renee Price: The Historic Preservation Commission doesn't have any objections to the proposal. We wanted to make it clear there are historical features on that property. At some point, they would like the opportunity to review it.